Commenter Profile

I grew up with the conventional wisdom believing that the Israelis were the "white hats" and that the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims were the "black hats." After 9/11, I wanted to know more about the conflict in the ME. I came to the realization that the narrative was totally one-sided.
I largely credit many outstanding Jewish voices (my close friend Bernie the Attorney for one) for opening my eyes. I see on a daily basis the efforts by Zionists and their stooges to dismiss truth-tellers in the most reprehensible manner, up to and including threats of violence. Truth needs no army of thugs to establish it; only lies need enforcers.

I think American's example (March 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm) of Jonathan Pollard illustrates the issue quite well. Whether or not Pollard actually had dual citizenship is fairly irrelavent. He acted against the interests of his own nation (who as a member of the military was sworn to protect the Constitution of against all enemies, foreign and domestic).

Instead of using the analogy of multiple children, it would be more apt to compare it to multiple parents (step-mothers and fathers through divorce, whatever, etc.).

Serving two masters can be a problem anytime their interests are at odds with each other.

I like DWS overall, but her position in Congress is for doing what's right for the US, not the US *and* Israel, and not Israel exclusively. Much of what she complains about with the GOP working against the interests of the American people also applies to kowtowing to Israel.

In a dual loyalty situation, where does one weigh in on the potential for a "Sophie's Choice" regarding an extreme expression of said loyalty? What would be the basis for choosing which nation to betray in a showdown?

I think they can clearly be both. I would offer that it manifests itself in the evil and stupidity of the notion that rather than operating in a fashion that can be "win-win" for most all parties involved, they see a "win" only in the context of if someone else "loses."

The fixation on this power differential creates a vicious cycle of sociopathy while generously feeding their paranoia (i.e. any objecting to them always coming out on top no matter what certainly want to do them ill - a classic case of projectionism).

Mr. Barghouti - Thank you for these observations. One of the things that most struck me when I first started looking into the various accounts of the IP conflict for myself was the countless "sins of omission."

Even when I'd read something that overall seemed to be shedding some light on an otherwise clouded narrative, the more I learned, the more I realized just how much was actually being left out of the story.

I am grateful to you and others who hold a consistant and uniform standard of truth. I have learned much from you all and continue to do so.

While I agree that we should look at those who lied mostly young men into this war. I do think that the support the troops things has gone overboard. To some degree this lets them off the hook for examining their own reasons for joining, not examining history of old men using young men to start and implement unnecessary wars. The support the troops mantra lets them off the hook way to much. They need to accept some responsibility for their choice and not digging deeper into the reasons for that invasion before they joined. And for what has taken place as a consequence.

In Gwyn Dyer's book/PBS special, "War", he has a chapter/segment titled "Anyone's Son Will Do." He goes on to show how the process of "psychological stripping" in boot camp is meant replace an individual's identity with a group identity. He also remarks how the bravado of the young is particularly conducive to the needs of the military and is regularly exploited (there are indeed older adults who lack this habit of purposeful introspection).

I believe my friend's son enlisted before 9/11 (if I recall correctly), but did so with a true desire to serve for the greater good. I would compare it to the seemingly dual obligations police officers sometimes face. They're heroes when dealing with criminals out to rob, rape, and murder...but how about those instances (such as the days of the civil rights struggle) when they're essentially no better than a paid goon squad?

Also, there are those instances where inductees are striving for opportunities unavailable to them where they come from. True, this does not excuse them carte blanche, but is a mitigating factor. I would be fairly satisfied if the part that was drilled into them above all else was their oath to the Constitution (whereby they swear to defend it against ALL enemies, foreign *and* _domestic_) as well as their obligation to reject unlawful orders. If those promises were actually kept, they might have swept into the Capitol to apprehend Bush, Cheney, and a host of other Congressional *War Criminals*.

For a little personal history, I offer this one last detail -

Though I became draft age in ’75 and actually toyed with the idea of enlisting (feeling if military service could ever be considered “safe”, that would not be too bad a time to serve), but knew I would have to take the oath and commitment seriously and did not trust the government to refrain from ordering me to kill people that did not deserve killing.

The picture of the young Vietnamese girl running naked through the street after being covered in napalm was a searing reminder just how violent and cruel waging war can be and I took it to heart. Not everyone is conditioned to ponder these starker aspects of reality when thinking about their role in a war machine.

My friend’s son was with Marines 1/5 for the fall of Baghdad. When I asked him what his experience over there was, the first words out of his mouth were, “We killed people for no reason.” He went on to relate how their checkpoints would regularly open up on approaching vehicles that often were full of nothing but women and children because maybe they didn’t slow down enough or heed hand signals properly. He also had to render aid to these same occupants with wounded children screaming in anquish and terror next to their dead or dying mothers, aunts, and/or sisters. He told of a six year old girl with the back of her skull blown off by a rifle round stumbling about unaware of anything but her dead mother on the ground.

He said he learned first hand just how much we were all lied to about Iraq. His attitude was, “Support the troops, but not the mission” (this sentiment gets regularly mocked on right wing sites). Several of his friends I met at his homecoming never came back from their next tour of duty.

[update from when I first started posting this account years ago] This former Marine is now suffering from PTSD. I asked if the VA covered his treatment. He said he gets ZERO help/treatment from the VA because they arbitrarily designate a % of level of affliction and his % (60%?) is below the threshhold for treatment. I bring this up because the official narrative being spun on this 'lone' killer is that he suffered from brain injury in Iraq (which in itself is often treated as if those complaining of impairment are whiners and malingerers). Have your bell rung by an EID and unless your brain actually oozes out your ears, you're still seen as fit for combat duty regardless of in what other ways your injury manifests itself.

As it stands, the brain injury allegations, while a grossly overlooked aspect of war wounds, stills seem to be a bit of a diversion as the first hand accounts questioning just how a single killer can cover so much ground and control so many so completely in his supposed 'solo' rampage shows the official version still seems to strain credulity.

Just now came across this wonderful quote from a movie I have not yet seen. It could easily go in any post/thread at all here at Mondoweiss, but I'll do Miko Peled the honor of unveiling it here. It also obviously applies to Phil and company, as well as all the commenters who regularly show their dedication to justice and truth (cue Adventures of Superman TV show theme...George Reeves we hardly knew ye)

I was off work for a couple of weeks and that always puts me completely out of the news loop (except for the Daily Show) but on the commute this morning was struck by the uniformity of the hand-wringing done on talk radio about the abberation of this "lone" soldier's actions. Seems as if everyone was on message to hang this albatross on him and him alone.

I posted this around 4 years ago with the passing of CA's Prop 8 (anti-gay marriage initiative that Romney's LDS church illegally funded). I was particularly pleased to have a responder provide a George Stephanopoulus quote that I think is quite relevant here:

A little while ago I was watching the repeat of Maher’s show with my father in the room, and asked him how he voted on the CA propositions (we don’t discuss politics much because it was the cause of a family dust up awhile back after the 2004 elections). I was mostly curious about 8 but asked about some of the othe props first. We saw things pretty much alike on most thing but when I asked about 8 he said he voted yes. Like I said, there’s a little tension over politics because his girlfriend (he’s a widower) is a GOP true believer and whenever family gathers for my birthday in November, recent elections have always been a topic of conversation (mine at least). I’ve always thought of my dad as a reasonably loving and tolerant individual and he’s never been much in the way of church going (though he sent us kids to a Catholic grade school) and has no problem with my atheism though my sister is a bible believer (and votes Republican too). Sometimes I think he is voting with his dick to make his gal pal happy (the way guys would pretend to be into causes in the 60’s to get chicks) but I guess there’s many things I don’t know about his core values. I also know that his buddies in the Elks Lodge he recently joined are pretty conservative (I had to ask him to stop sending me emails of their Reich Wing bullshit – like the Obama birth certificate "scandal", and other missives sucking the choad of St. Ronnie)

More surprising to me than that though, is two female friends who I’d consider at least Democrats if not actually liberally-minded (one even asks me how she should vote and I fill in her sample ballot with my recomendations) said they voted yes too . Both have/had many gay friends, don’t get their nose out of joint for other social taboos (cohabitation, rec drugs, etc.) regardless of their own personal choices but still somewhat sheepishly admitted that they voted yes (they didn’t want any flack for their vote, but they were adamant about their choice). Both have been divorced at least once, one is black, and one I was a coworker with before we wound up at the same employer (long time friend).

All I can think of is that they feel gay marriage is a sign that we have become overly permissive as a society (based on some of the other things they’ve said). They are fine with civil unions. It seems as if somehow losing "traditional" marriage means that all bets are off in regards society as they recognize it. I think it’s an attitude that this would open the door to other changes that they would be uncomfortable with. They’re both about 10 years older than me (I’m 50) and I guess they’re pretty much just set in their ways. Gay marriage is apparently just too "radical" for the world they grew up in.

I bring this up only to offer a little perspective for those votes Prop 8 got that were from people without a clearly recognizable agenda, but those that pretty much went with their gut feelings because they find gay marriage "icky" and that no one should have to vote for icky.

I’m beginning to believe those who’ve said that the old attitudes, by and large, will have to die off (as younger adults are less polarized over gay issues on the whole).

40.
Thursday - November 16, 2008 | 10:22 pm · Link

When it went through here (Soviet Canuckistan), one "pretty face" named George Strombolopolis noted:

"What people against gay marriage don’t understand is that – it’s over. In ten years, that age group most strongly opposed will have died off, and the young people – those most in favour of it – will still be voting. It’s over now, or it’s over in a few years; but it’s over."

Here's my idea to restore the "shared sacrifice" needed to ensure that hawks have some skin in the game too

(from another blog comment)

re-instituted draft not enuff - we need to up the ante

Rush Limbaugh used his anal cysts to stay out of harm's way. I would create a lottery for the rabid chicken hawks whether in politics or media, and those voting for the chicken hawks...but not for service necessarily (though one's volunteer service immediately exempts his or her family).

Consider this.

There was that Star Trek episode where the warring subgroups on this planet sanitized the warfare in order to eliminate the destruction by computerizing it and having the victims report to be eliminated.

What I propose would be similar. What caused me to think of it was all those "we thank you for your service and sacrifice" platitudes to troops or their surviving or suffering family members from those most definitely not in anyone's crosshairs. All those cheerleading for war would submit to a lottery themselves. The first level would be to determine who of the blowhards' family (over 17 - the age of enlistment with a parent or guardian's note) in addition to themselves the lottery would include, and the second level would be what traumatization they would incur (if any). The odds of getting any given "assigned" injury would be based on the %'s of what actual combat troops were incurring, from PTSDs (could be induced by a "Clockwork Orange" type immersion/exposure to traumatizing stimuli), to any Purple Heart or negligence type wound or injury (i.e. KBR shower electrocutions - Cheney's so-called "other priorities" won't mean sh!t) up to but excluding actual death, though combat KIAs and MIAs would be factored into the odds (we want to be fair, don't we?). Second chance drawings would be awarded to the most vocal and/or clueless blowhards based on a formula that factored in forced multiple tours of duty, overused and overextended National Guard units, wagging the dog wars, and wars for Israel, and the callous deployment of poorly supplied troops (with bonus penalties for doing so at the enrichment of crooked contractors - see above).

Finally, bonus penalties for egregious war crimes committed by our side (and not truly "fog of war" and dumb mistakes by kids without much life experiences put in situations that anyone would have difficulty navigating). That means those whose number was called might be water-boarded, put in naked piles while being humiliated (bonus upside for them as they might actually enjoy it), or watching their children being tortured.

Human sociopathic scum like Bush, Cheney, Beck, Limbaugh, Rumsfeld, et al instead of just claiming such sacrifice was absolutely necessary for the safety and well-being of the nation and its citizenry could actually confirm that by risking/wagering their own safety and that of their families so that could nobly share in that same sacrifice (or at least possible risk of it) themselves. Any cheating or shenanigans from them would result in the execution of *all* on their first level list, no exceptions.

Hey Mitt! You still want to go to war with Iran now that your five non-Military sons get to roll the dice with you?!? But before you answer, try reading Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun" (or the movie if it's Dubya or Bachmann or Palin we are talking about). Sure you got $250 million dollars but maybe now you got no mouth to scream. I guess you *really* felt it was worth it!

Pro-war Dems get in on this too. And the same plan goes into effect even if it's agreed the war is just and necessary. That's the cruel and destructive nature of actual war. Just like that Star Trek episode meant to highlight.

I was at a banquet gathering with an employee of The Shoah Foundation. In addition to the Holocaust archives, they've also got audio-video first person testimonies of atrocities from Armenians, Rwandans, and Cambodians. I asked him if the foundation ever planned to include Palestinian testimonies from the Nakba.

He said they did not suffer genocide.

I said if the definition was limited to a people being eradicated from the earth, then neither did the Jews.

I'm sorry to trot this link and quote out so often but I find it so perfectly fitting -

The trick of declaring war against the armed resistance and then attacking the resisters’ unarmed kin as well as the surrounding population with the most gruesome products of Death-Science — this trick is not new. American Pioneers were pioneers in this too; they made it standard practice to declare war on indigenous warriors and then to murder and burn villages with only women and children in them. This is already modern war, what we know as war against civilian populations; it has also been called, more candidly, mass murder or genocide.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that the perpetrators of a Pogrom portray themselves as the victims, in the present case as victims of the Holocaust.

Herman Melville noticed over a century ago, in his analysis of the metaphysics of Indian-hating, that those who made a full-time profession of hunting and murdering indigenous people of this continent always made themselves appear, even in their own eyes, as the victims of manhunts.

The use the Nazis made of the International Jewish Conspiracy is better known: during all the years of atrocities defying belief, the Nazis considered themselves the victimized.

It’s as if the experience of being a victim gave exemption from human solidarity, as if it gave special powers, as if it gave a license to kill.

When Walid Shoebat compared Palestinians to Nazis at a talk at our campus, Israel-firsters decried it, but at the same time distanced themselves from Shoebat (or at least the statement) though Hillel and the Young Repubs were co-sponsors of his talk (if I recall correctly).

Yeah, but the tires were rubber (like their bullets) so it is yet another example of the most moral army in the world going out of their way to use a velvet glove that vicious anti-Israel firsters blow all out of proportion.

This might have something to do with the reluctance to address other instances of systemized mass-murder (funny how it always has to do with whose ox is getting gored...and whose ox is doing the goring).

Wasn't able to open the edit in time. For greater clarity, this line should be understood as a caution to Phil and Adam, not any sort of indication that I felt Sean's suggestion was in the least bit kowtowing (wonderful word - check the origins).

These are very astute and reasonable observations and is a wonderfully creative and simple way to address the limitations of moderation and provide some effective safeguards.

I had previously and repeatedly suggested to PuffHo and the D-Kossacks that there should be a comment purgatory/graveyard where scrubbed comments could be viewed or even facilitate the continuation of the discussion. Of course neither of those sites were interested because it wasn't ever *really* about comments that were beyond the pale, but rather too much truth in conflict with the official narrative put forth by the 'new' media overlords (and publishing what was removed would reveal the otherwise "hidden" agenda in ways that nothing else could).

But considering the amount of "pearl clutching" done by those wanting to restrict those voices they find, shall we say..."troubling", I would compare it to a museum or art gallery that puts certain Mapplethorpe exhibits in a wing with warnings of potentially objectionable content and enacting certain entrance restrictions. Far preferable to an outright refusal to exhibit such works.

But don't kowtow too quickly to those pushing for less freedom because imagine how easily content could be controlled if the penalties for minors reading sites with swear words were as rigidly defined as they are for movie ratings and the associated responsibilities theater owners have for controlling admission to PG-13, R, NC-17, and X-rated films.

This is just the mentality and mindset that brought us "Nipple-gate" (search: Janet Jackson/Super Bowl/FCC). The consequences are even far more critical in regards to free and open discussion on things that affect so drastically the course of our own nation and the health, well-being, and essential freedoms of others as well.

Your comment made me go back and look for further gems. I thought this was particularly apropos.

We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience.

Letter, Sherman to Henry W. Halleck, December 24, 1864.[8]

Of course in this instance I mean the verbal thrust and parry in open and free debate as you alluded to.

@Taxi - though others have said as much as well, I very much like the way you phrased it. I both enjoy and respond more passionately to anyone with a fire in their belly regardless of how 'genteel' (or not) their choice of vocabulary (think "Rude Pundit" ~ sometimes you just gotta call them as you see them).

Bring out your champions!

Sometimes the purveyors of the much refuted nonsense supporters of justice and truth endure on a regular basis deserve to be recipients of the equivalent of Sherman's march to the sea.

Both President Lincoln and General Grant had serious reservations about Sherman's plans.[4] Still, Grant trusted Sherman's assessment and on November 2, 1864, he sent Sherman a telegram stating simply, "Go as you propose."[5] The 300-mile (480 km) march began on November 15. Sherman recounted in his memoirs the scene when he left at 7 a.m. the following day:

... We rode out of Atlanta by the Decatur road, filled by the marching troops and wagons of the Fourteenth Corps; and reaching the hill, just outside of the old rebel works, we naturally paused to look back upon the scenes of our past battles. We stood upon the very ground whereon was fought the bloody battle of July 22d, and could see the copse of wood where McPherson fell. Behind us lay Atlanta, smouldering and in ruins, the black smoke rising high in air, and hanging like a pall over the ruined city. Away off in the distance, on the McDonough road, was the rear of Howard's column, the gun-barrels glistening in the sun, the white-topped wagons stretching away to the south; and right before us the Fourteenth Corps, marching steadily and rapidly, with a cheery look and swinging pace, that made light of the thousand miles that lay between us and Richmond. Some band, by accident, struck up the anthem of "John Brown's soul goes marching on;" the men caught up the strain, and never before or since have I heard the chorus of "Glory, glory, hallelujah!" done with more spirit, or in better harmony of time and place.

I have always revealed to others who may disagree with me vehemently, that I consider it a sign of respect to express myself openly and honestly to anyone. Would they rather I hide my views out of fear they might find them offensive? How would I know what they felt if I shaded my views to be in line with what I presumed theirs were?

Also, do not forget that those not allowed to express themselves freely find other ways (code words, etc.) to broadcast those same views. Furthermore, what dynamic would you find preferable, one where a person was free to express themselves as they saw fit (with the benefit of possibly being able to disabuse them of such reprehensible notions), or would you rather they held such views in secret as they pretended not to hold such a vile outlook?

Considering how Israel Firsters have for so long gamed the refs by having a demonstrably public attack of the "vapours" anytime someone says something that might make Zionists cry, I say it is far better to err on the side of free expression.

While I can certainly see how certain topics and conversations are a digression from the purpose of the blog overall, and as such I will comply to the best of my ability, both in the letter, and the spirit of the law...if I get banned, I get banned. A one strike rule seems rather extreme as I on occasion have felt the need to publicly apologize for upsetting another poster in one way or another.

Just as a reminder, here's how these type of loyalty conflicts play out in various areas and processes. It is also worth remembering just how thoroughly excoriated anyone who would dare to bring up such instances are.

I have waded into the waters of the "elderofziyon" blog before. Interesting that the poster does not link to a specific public response to Jesse, but instead counsels him to email him and all will be cleared up (What ever happened to "Sunlight is the best disinfectant"?).

One thing I would like to attest to personally (as a goyim), though the site's host treated me respectfully at his site, most of his readers/commenters were *exactly* the type of idiots (vitriolic, nasty, foul-mouthed, know-nothing blowhards) he claims do not represent "true" Zionism (whatever the h3ll *that* is).

I have often challenged them to venture on over to the Mondoweiss site, but I believe their claims were basically that it was a propaganda site along the lines of Stormfront so nobody of any merit would ever be caught dead there (my how the mighty have fallen!).

In defense of the author, the site host has indicated he's come over on several occasions and mopped the floor with Phil and company and had tired of it.

One bit of trivia for these über-patriots...The field of stars on the American flag hanging vertically should always be on the left (with the one exception I know about when hanging over a street - see: http://www.proadvance.com/flagdisplay.html).

How remarkable the courage of those challenging the status quo over something so many of us take for granted (i.e. driving on non-segregated roads). I imagine the headaches for those now on the IDF radar with their IDs (or vehicles) confiscated has only just begun.

It seems like only yesterday that I was branded an anti-Semite on the LA Jewish Journal forum for even claiming that such a thing as a "Jews only" road actually existed (their argument being that approved Westerner non-Jews could also drive it).

Love your observations and it seemed an appropriate place to include this from me. I remember watching a C-SPAN call-in show during a previous election cycle and a very eloquent and rational caller tried to steer the discussion (relevant to the topic...Iraq?, 9/11?, political campaigns?) to Israel and the Lobby and was cut-off short with the host apologizing for that (hate speech?) sneaking in there. Almost on cue (I guess "Megaphone" got the alert), a spate of over-the-top calls made it through with callers practically barking, "crank up the ovens!"

I assume the intent was to link the reasoned call with the cartoonish vitriol of the calls that followed. I have seen the same sort of dynamic with regards to blog gate-keeping. Well thought out and supported indictments of Israel and the Lobby disappear, but the racist rantings (from whatever source) remain.

Alan Keyes once made an astute observation on elections covered as a horse race in that in gambling you bet on who you think will win, but in an election, you're supposed to support who you want to win. The media further muddies the situation by being able to combine the two.

Annie - Phil's compliments to you were, if anything, quite reserved. You are a treasure, both in your knowledge, tenacity, and willingness to share, but also in your attitude, openess, and warm and caring heart.

My sincere thanks and gratitude to you (and my own apologies for holding back and posting in such a "reserved" manner myself).

Interesting point I had not considered. I know that religious Jews deal with notions of gentiles being like cattle and the concepts of a Jewish life having more value than a non-Jewish one, but if a secular Zionist elevates the value of the tribal association to the extent that it does, to what level does it endorse the religious tenets of its tribal affiliation despite coming from a secular stance itself?

Do secular Zionist Jews consider themselves a superior strain of human being, and wouldn't that mean that everyone else is inferior? I think that would be as relevant to the discussion (grades of humans) as quantifying the breakdown of human/less than human would be.

I think much of that became clear to me when I learned how with regards to notions of racial superiority and bloodlines; it was more a case of the Jews in competition with the Nazis, as opposed to them being viewed strictly in the sense of inferior or sub-human.

Thank you for these observations, Jeffrey. I find it bordering on criminal the way we can treat war casualties and the like as only having any relevance if it is our own (or "other" favored group), while fully ignoring the other victims.

I would have loved to have been one of your history class students. I was at least fortunate to have other educators who were willing to look at the whole of the history of our nation. I think the blindness of many in the US is epitomized by Mitt Romney in his victory speech from last night;

I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

US personnel are compromised by what they thught was a chance encounter with a paramour (or whatever activity, contraband, etc.), and are then subject by blackmail into becoming an Israeli intel asset. This is standard MO with US politicians, and to have the US personnel in country, they can really work their targets.

Btw, to be fair to Paul, I remember reading a piece about an early Jimmy Carter campaign against Carl Sanders for state senate that seemed to use questionable tactics (see: http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?p=2220 ).

I still am a big fan of Carter (though again, I've heard ultra-progressives explain that Carter's support of some government action in Central/South America easily made him a war criminal as well) but either everyone's past is their own albatross, or it is not.

I don't know if there is a single pol who matches my views on everything, and it seems we're all subjected to selecting the lesser of two evils regardless.

I know what you mean. Shrubya claimed a mandate and bulldozed all sorts of nonsense through (with thanks to the help of Dems and their expected spimelessness), yet Obama actually had pretty extensive (comparatively) liberal and progressive support but instead opted for the bi-partisan rainbow brigde as he tried to compromise with the GOP where-in he gave up way too much up front and got little or nothing in return. I'm jaded enough to think that that's the way the other corporate party wanted it (as they claim all the while that their hands were tied and that's as good a deal as they were going to get).

Sidenote - since a filibuster can be implimented by just reading a phone book or reciting poetry or whatever, wouldn't it be nice to use the opportunity to actually make a detailed credible case for one of the many issues in Congress not given any time of the floor to be heard?

Seems like you could get your way just by bringing attention to things that the other side would rather not even have see the light of day.

As an atheist, I participate in the communal nature of the holidays in that it is shared with food, friends, and family. I tell people that the "breakng of bread" has meaning for me in that it meant that you literally did not wish the other person to starve to death and so shared your bounty with them as welcomed guests.

I think for me, Dr. Finkelstein's lasting legacy is seeing just how thoroughly truth-tellers must be demonized and marginalized in the echo chamber. Dr. Finkelstein is a true academic in every sense of the word as he follows the facts wherever they should lead. Get the facts right but upset the wrong people, you're a pariah. Parrot the official narrative but make assertions and predictions that totally fall flat, and your career will not only not suffer...you'll most likely gain further advancement from your efforts (Medal of Freedom, anyone?).

Bernie the Attorney once mentioned that arguments are not decided on their merit, but rather who holds the power to declare which view shall be declared the winner.

In email exchanges with Dr. Finkelstein as De Paul was in the process of denying him tenure, I wrote how his various works on the IP conflict had a "multiplier" effect as he gave those willing to examine the issue honestly the tools and the confidence to wade into any debate and effectively deconstruct the propaganda that for so long had been considered sacrosanct. In closing I said it was quite evident just how much he loved teaching.

He wrote back a warm and to the point reply that confirmed even more what I had just wrote. Though there was a frustration about the process ongoing with De Paul, his integrity meant far more than the peer approval of academe (though it was the administrators who nixed his tenure, as the most all other department heads recommended him highly).

He seems to have had the last laugh though, as the university had to make a statement commending his teaching ability as the normally closed door tenure process had too many leaks aimed at disparaging him (I thnk there was also a out of court financial settlement), and he is using his seemingly boundless energy to continue to educate others on the facts about the conflict in the region.

To smear-mongers such as Dershowitz; be careful what you wish for. You have unleashed Norman Finkelstein on the world...and truth-tellers can tell the truth from any stage. Thank you Dr. Finkelstein, for your love of teaching, and commitment to truth and facts above all.

And atheists such as Alan Dershowitz will continue to lobby for the legitimacy of spilling the blood of the regions non-Jews by arguing against the advisability of assimilation as he feels they need to preserve their bloodline though he dismisses any theological basis for such. This seems to allow him to rationalize all the other abuses of the Israeli state as being not just "good" for Jews, but "necessary" for their continued untainted identity.

I imagine HRC is being allowed to capitalize on an opportunity to look as if she champions the rights of women everywhere no matter who she has to take to task for it, because they have been assured that she will not actually take any action in support of her rhetoric.

For me, the pattern that seems to fit the Israeli model is that individual rights are trumped at any level by the needs of the state, justifications for whatever draconian practices are based on increasingly more brazen lies and transparent propaganda, high-tech measures are virtually without restraint as the state exploits whatever advantage over the masses it can, when the state feels threatened or even worries about a potential threat of being threatened, it tends to unleash state sanctioned violence under the guise of maintaining "order", this fixation on "order" is claimed as essential to maintaining the republic with all its inherent rights as it proceeds to dismantle those same rights either in plain view or behind the scenes, and anyone at anytime can designated an enemy of the state and all that entails backed by the power of the state take action in direct violation and defiance of the Constitution, conveniently leapfrog concepts of guilt, innocence, or due process on their say so, treats its citizens as guilty and the enemy by default and further demonstrates the blatant hypocrisy and rot from within by exempting themselves from all rules, oversight, and monitoring, though they themselves are the ones most likely to be caught with their hands in the cookie jar while they dismiss any allegations of impropriety with nothing more than hand-waving, and are barely impeded in their avarice even when convictions have been won. If there was ever a group that needed 24/7 surveillance...it's Congress.

Government has long been the most successful form of banditry, and no government gives up power willingly. They've determined the most useful strategy is to keep the populace bogged down with other concerns (usually day to day survival), and on the defensive as the 180 rule allows them to blame of ills, failings, misfortune, and adversity on the citizens themselves as such misdirection allows them pretend they were merely witnesses to the breakdown, desperately trying to save the day with their wise and masterful leadership, rather than the catalyst (if not direct cause) for the crisis du jour.

The unraveling of so much that we took for granted in the current state of affairs reminds me of something I saw when the USSR had an exhibit at the LA Convention Center for the 60th anniversary of the Russian revolution. As you walked in, there were stacks of pocket sized booklets of the constitution of the USSR (I've still got it stashed somewhere). In reading it, I discovered their constitution also has rights and protections of the same sort specified on our own Constitution.

It was then I understood that rights can be easily espoused, but when granted only at the pleasure of those the safeguards are meant to protect us from, fear and force are quite effective in preventing us from exercising those rights, as more and more people see for themselves what happens to those who still cling to the outdated expectations that they are still in possession of their rights, when in reality, people have the right to do to you anything which you cannot prevent them from doing to you.

I think Gingrich's most recent display of hubris clearly indicates just how flawed his powers of reasoning are (though his hypocrisy knows no bounds). He indicated that his infidelity was a result of his patriotism. I don't even think he even elaborated further but obviously he feels that he operates under a different set of rules as weilding great power requires the regular and timely release of stress through sexual congress of the forbidden fruit variety. This forbidden fruit is even sweeter if he's also condemning someone else at the same time for similar illicit acts.

The trick of declaring war against the armed resistance and then attacking the resisters’ unarmed kin as well as the sur­rounding population with the most gruesome products of Death-Science — this trick is not new. American Pioneers were pioneers in this too; they made it standard practice to declare war on indigenous warriors and then to murder and burn villages with only women and children in them. This is already modern war, what we know as war against civilian populations; it has also been called, more candidly, mass murder or genocide.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that the perpetrators of a Pogrom portray themselves as the victims, in the present case as victims of the Holocaust.

Herman Melville noticed over a century ago, in his analysis of the metaphysics of Indian-hating, that those who made a full-time profession of hunting and murdering indigenous people of this continent always made themselves appear, even in their own eyes, as the victims of manhunts.

The use the Nazis made of the International Jewish Conspiracy is better known: during all the years of atrocities defying belief, the Nazis considered themselves the victimized.

It’s as if the experience of being a victim gave exemption from human solidarity, as if it gave special powers, as if it gave a license to kill.

Israel masterfully employs the precepts of "Catch-22" as defined by author Joseph Heller when he said, "Catch-22 means people have the right to do to you anything which you cannot prevent them from doing to you."

Two weeks ago Israel demolished a Palestinian-owned historical hotel in East Jerusalem to make room for another Jewish-only settlement financed by Jewish-American billionaire Irving Moskowitz. In another Jerusalem suburb, Israel established "Silwan Development Plan", to "legalise" the destruction of several native Palestinian Jerusalemite homes under the pretext of building a "biblical" garden.

In 1993, Israel and the Palestinians signed an agreement calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian population areas and establishing a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority for a five-year interim period during which "permanent status negotiations" would commence - no later than May 1996. More than a decade later and the date had been slippery, retreating with every Israeli election.

Since 1948 succeeding Israeli governments have used peace talks as a ploy to buy time while changing the geographic and demographic make-up of occupied lands. As past president of the World Jewish Organisation Nahum Goldman once declared, in the mid-1970s: "Diplomacy in the Middle East is the art of delaying the inevitable as long as possible."

Israel has perfected this art by fooling the international community as it doubled the settlers' population in the occupied West Bank, including Jerusalem, since signing the peace agreement, which called for setting up the future Palestinian state over the same land.

Currently, 46 per cent of the occupied West Bank has been expropriated for the benefits of approximately 500,000 illegal Jewish settlers; the remaining housing over 2.6 million Palestinians. Hence, each settler has an equivalent of 5,428sqm, while the Native Palestinian land per capita is 1,270sqm. In other words, the land benefiting Palestinians translates roughly to less than one-fourth of the land dedicated for each illegal Israeli settler. Even apartheid South Africa would have been ashamed of such discriminatory practice.

International law, more specifically article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 states: Occupying Power shall not transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Yet, since occupying the West Bank, and more so since the Oslo agreement, Israel has implemented a systematic policy encouraging the establishment of Jewish-only settlements with segregated bypass roads traversing the hills and valleys of the West Bank while suffocating the Palestinian population with thousands of military checkpoints hindering the movement of goods and people.

Despite Israel continued violation of the peace process, and recent declaration from the right-wing ex-Moldavian head of Israel diplomacy that peace is "impossible". Yet, during her recent visit to GCC countries, the US Secretary of State announced that the current Israeli government is a peace partner, and what sounded like blackmail, she foresaw a Middle East free of nuclear power once Arabs (collectively) sign peace treaty with Israel. This was even after Israel rejected US servitude appeals to halt, even notionally, the building of illegal settlements.

In the coming weeks the Palestinians and Arab diplomats in New York plan to bring forth Israel's illegal settlement programme for discussion before the UN Security Council. The US, however, is threatening to block any majority vote censuring measures undermining the peace process. As such, the US, which subsidises indirectly the illegal settlement programme, and permits Israel to violate international law with impunity, disqualifies itself as a peace broker. Sadly, the US, by shielding Israel's intransigence is becoming more like a peace breaker.

The Souix "tactic" was the moral high ground, something that should be more readily apparent in the present as opposed to the historical lack of handwringing over the consequences to those indigenous to the lands as the claims of "Manifest Destiny" helped keep the steamrolling juggernaut powered.

Israeli steamrolling is based on claims just as specious and the assenting silence manufactured through control of the narrative greases the wheels of their juggernaut just as effectively.

They're the house burglars negotiating with the cops and the victims just how much of the stolen goods they're willing to return (Not much? How totally out of character for the light unto nations!!)

They're the rapists demanding unrestricted conjugal visits as the victim is a hussy and needs a little rough treatment now and then to keep her in line.

Seems the notion of "forked tongue" could be expanded to include Chosenite Z-teamers as accusations of pointed tails offer too little context.

I think Woody's points addressing the comments by W. Jones are accurate. Israeli "negotiations" have pretty much always been a stalling tactic to gain further advantage by continuously shifting the goalposts.

The Palestinians would be better off, in my opinion, by following the example of the Sioux nation who reject the forfeiting their sovereignty for a plethora of empty promises from those with no rights to their territory in the first place.

I do think there's something to the deference to authority angle, in addition to the typical meme of "when their side does it, it's reprehensible, and when 'our side' does it (in this case, those whose authority also involves undeserved adulation or respect for whatever reason) it's either justifiable, excusable, or inconsequential."

That's the sort of sophistry I've learned to expect from Dersh and one he uses quite consistently regarding I/P issues. Even with the academic take on the Paterno issue from a criminal defense attorney's/ law professor's standpoint, I think it is actually meant to run parallel his "reasoning" on so much of his I/P blather, and as such, use those poorly reasoned bloviations to "support", however indirectly, his other poorly reasoned bloviations regarding Israel and Palestine.

Alan's just that sort of "big picture" kind of guy. Everything for the greater good of Chosanistan.

In response to this case, my university issued a memo reminding all that it is our moral and professional responsibility to report on and follow up with in order that the university fully investigate any allegation of such criminal activity for just the reasons that Mr. Samel elaborated on above.

One other thing Bernie the Attorney pointed out that is clearly in evidence in most all things Zionist related, it's not who puts forth the most compelling argument, it's who gets to decide which argument is deemed the victor, and who has control of the echo chamber that reinforces such speciousness.

Mooser - very true. I was also greatly assisted by my pal Bernie the Attorney (anti-Zionist secular humanist w/ Jewish mother) who explained the "180 Rule" to me where he offered that any pronouncement by Zionists or their stooges could be most readily deciphered by "flipping it", so-to-speak, to discern the truth.

Can we call this the 99% Spring and expand the BDS action to the Wall Street and banking robber barons?

The solidarity with the Palestinians is in currently getting screwed over and ignored as well but could quickly escalate without much effort to wrongful imprisonment, targeting with violence, an unconcern for the level of harm from the violence the victims would be subjected to, and a unified front of propaganda to demonize the victims further.

If and when the exchanged is actually made, I'll be interested in hearing about the treatment each side received. I'd imagine anything done to the Palestinians will be dismissed, ignored, or downplayed, and anything Shalit had to endure will be treated as proof of Palestinian/Arab/Muslim barbarity.

I think you're probably on to something because that net seems to cover all the bases as far as I can see. The breakdown of the individual components takes us back to square one, but "Israel Firsters" is the tent that they all are gathered under.

I also think that it is specific enough *not* to include those Israelis (or should I say, those Israeli Jews?) who are more than willing to coexist and not think only in terms of the Jewish state über alles.

irishmoses - those are interesting observations and worth considering (as the replies down-thread testify to). I know as a non-Jew myself, it was like walking on eggshells to even try to catalog any sort of association without coming across like someone with a chip on their shoulder making a scorecard tally. So many of the categories overlap, or are not hegemonic (or are to some extent), or includes those not Jewish but with some other support status for Zionist Jews. The various members that come to mind regardless of the appropriateness of their inclusion would be xian Zionists, neocons, Israel firsters, the Israel Lobby, organized Jewry, international Jewry, Israeli Zionists, Likudniks, Ultra-Orthodox, etc., etc. And as someone else pointed out, even the spectrum of views within these subgroups is not monolithic.

It's not only hard for the uninitiated to tell the players without a program, examining the roster itself and making note of the positions filled can be fraught with peril just on its own.

One of the beauties of internet links are the interesting things I learn by accident. In checking out the "See Also" for "My Name is Rachel Corrie", I learned it is a play based on the diaries and emails of Rachel Corrie, edited by Alan Rickman, who directed it.

Alan Rickman is the immensely enjoyable actor of "Die Hard", and "Harry Potter" fame and I guess I am so jaded as to the kowtowing of Hollywood to Israeli Zionist interests, that I am actually shocked (and pleased) when I find that someone is willing to publicly take a stand for justice when doing so, more times than not, causes them to incur various hardships within the industry.

Vanessa Redgrave and her stand for Palestine comes to mind. In keeping with the theme of serendipity, when doing a search to make sure I was thinking of the right Redgrave sister, I came across her speech at the Oscars, which again reminds us all not to remain silent in the face of injustice.

And I salute you and I pay tribute to you and I think you should be very proud that in the last few weeks you've stood firm and you have refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums [gasps from the audience followed by a smattering of boos and clapping] whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression.

joer - those trying to point out the fact that US politicians act as vassals of the state of Israel get regularly excoriated. That makes establishing the ultimate responsibility a teensy weensy bit problematic.

Just as Nancy "Impeachement is off the table" Pelosi helped whitewash Shrubya's crimes, it is a sad fact that Pres. Obama's failure to act on Bush adminstration war crimes (as well as his own continuation of them himself), has unfortunately for him, made him laible to charges of war crimes too.

I find it ironic that in trying to look up a link for that war crime definition (i.e. failure to pursue predecessors potential war crimes), I found an article on Sweden being chastized for not hunting Nazi war criminals with enough intensity.

[begin excerpt]We next find Moshe Dayan addressing the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Haifa (as quoted in Ha'aretz, 4 April 1969). Dayan had no idea how much his statement has awakened thousands of sleeping horses who have dedicated themselves to proving him wrong:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." [end excerpt]

It is also tragically ironic that the CAMERA acronym is supposed to be indicative that it is meant to ensure "accuracy in Middle East reporting."

What is being done to Palestinians is nothing to be happy about, and yet so many of those photos make me smile. The lady in the Palestinian flag dress with her warm friendly grin makes me smile.

And feeling conflicted about smiling over something as tragic as the children's images from Gaza also makes me tear up.

It is a confusing and uncomfortable state to be in (and that's acknowledging that no one is trying to kill me or restrict my freedom to the extent that theirs are...for the time being, as far as I can tell).

Only slightly off-topic but worth mentioning regarding guilt and innocence. I was poking around the net looking for a particular comment thread I was part of and came back to an old DKos thread on the evils of Mondofront (the depiction of Mondoweiss by some there as being indistinguishable from Stromfront). I clicked on the comment history of some of the stellar intellects that had declared me a Holocaust denier, and saw that they're up to the same old shite, but in even a far more heavy-handed and histrionic manner. The purges have been so complete that any of their delusional pronouncements are met with a chorus of approval by like-minded toadies. Should someone have the temerity to even question a minor point of the demonization, the howls of indignation become thunderous.

Historically, I can see how bitter little cretins, upon gaining a smidgeon of power, become even more smug and capricious douchebags, willing to use any means necessary to enforce the required orthodoxy, with the stipulation that questioning it might just be, in their minds, the most serious crime of all.

Seriously, those mofos scare me because stupidy coupled with certainty is *always* a toxic brew.

And to make things even more bizarre, this morning on conservative AM talk radio, I heard Bob Barr (former US rep now Constitutional lawyer)talking quite rationally about what a travesty it was to execute a man of whom there was considerable doubt about his guilt because the appeals court set the bar for reexamining the case the stipulation that it would only do so if there was evidence to *prove* his innocence, rather than the normal legal concept of showing the state did not actually prove their case as witness recanting and other trial details could be shown to not meet the burdon of proof.

Crazy, crazy world.

Rush to execute an extremely likely innocent man, while not even prosecuting an extremely likely guilty man (Bush) for rushing to commit the senseless murders of many COMPLETELY innocent men, women, and children.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.

Sign up for Mondoweiss List

There are now two ways to get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up for a daily digest of every story we publish or a weekly collection of highlights picked by Mondoweiss staff to stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in Israel/Palestine.